The influences of family, society, culture, and community are all factors to take into consideration when understanding socialization. How are childhoods influenced by nature and nurture? In this section, we will consider how family, society and culture influence the lives of children. You will explore how the natural sciences (biology) and social sciences (anthropology, psychology, social work, and sociology) study these influences on children.
Defining Socialization
In the summer of 2005, police detective Mark Holste followed an investigator from the Department of Children and Families to a home in Plant City, Florida. They were there to look into a statement from the neighbor concerning a shabby house on Old Sydney Road. A small girl was reported peering from one of its broken windows. This seemed odd because no one in the neighborhood had seen a young child in or around the home, which had been inhabited for the past three years by a woman, her boyfriend, and two adult sons. Who was the mystery girl in the window? Entering the house, Detective Holste and his team were shocked. It was the worst mess they’d ever seen, infested with cockroaches, smeared with feces and urine from both people and pets, and filled with dilapidated furniture and ragged window coverings. Detective Holste headed down a hallway and entered a small room. That’s where he found the little girl, with big, vacant eyes, staring into the darkness. A newspaper report later described the detective’s first encounter with the child: “She lay on a torn, moldy mattress on the floor. She was curled on her side . . . her ribs and collarbone jutted out . . . her black hair was matted, crawling with lice. Insect bites, rashes and sores pocked her skin . . . She was naked—except for a swollen diaper. … Her name, her mother said, was Danielle. She was almost seven years old” (DeGregory, 2008). Detective Holste immediately carried Danielle out of the home. She was taken to a hospital for medical treatment and evaluation.
Through extensive testing, doctors determined that, although she was severely malnourished, Danielle was able to see, hear, and vocalize normally. Still, she wouldn’t look anyone in the eyes, didn’t know how to chew or swallow solid food, didn’t cry, didn’t respond to stimuli that would typically cause pain, and didn’t know how to communicate either with words or simple gestures such as nodding “yes” or “no.” Likewise, although tests showed she had no chronic diseases or genetic abnormalities, the only way she could stand was with someone holding onto her hands, and she “walked sideways on her toes, like a crab” (DeGregory, 2008). What had happened to Danielle? Put simply: beyond the basic requirements for survival, she had been neglected. Based on their investigation, social workers concluded that she had been left almost entirely alone in rooms like the one where she was found. Without regular interaction—the holding, hugging, talking, the explanations, and demonstrations given to most young children—she had not learned to walk or to speak, to eat or to interact, to play or even to understand the world around her. From a sociological point of view, Danielle had not been socialized.
Socialization is the process through which people are taught to be proficient members of a society. It describes the ways that people come to understand societal norms and expectations, to accept society’s beliefs, and to be aware of societal values. Socialization is not the same as socializing (interacting with others, like family, friends, and coworkers); to be precise, it is a sociological process that occurs through socializing. As Danielle’s story illustrates, even the most basic of human activities are learned. You may be surprised to know that even physical tasks like sitting, standing, and walking had not automatically developed for Danielle as she grew. And without socialization, Danielle hadn’t learned about the material culture of her society (the tangible objects a culture uses): for example, she couldn’t hold a spoon, bounce a ball, or use a chair for sitting. She also hadn’t learned its nonmaterial culture, such as its beliefs, values, and norms. She had no understanding of the concept of “family,” didn’t know cultural expectations for using a bathroom for elimination, and had no sense of modesty."
Socialization is the manner used to internalize the norms and ideas of a society, and helps maintain social and cultural continuity. It is the way children learn about and begin to understand the world they live in. This develops as children interact with various “agencies” in their lives. Some of the strongest agents of socialization Will be discussed in this chapter.
The COVID-19 pandemic truly altered the way we socialized as a nation. The United States as well as abroad went into lockdowns for periods of time which made us rely on technology more than we may have in the past. Daily routines which may have included going to school, participating in activities outside the home (ex. sports, clubs, community service) and interacting with one's peer group changed and led to more screen time and minimal interactions with people face to face for families, but especially children of all ages. (Ranjbar, K., Hosseinpour, H., Shahriarirad, R.et al.,2021). No one could have imagined that a virus would impact the way we socialized and understood the importance of social-emotional development. This leads us to understanding how traits we may have inherited or learned assist in our overall development.
Nature vs Nurture
Nature vs nurture is all about genes and heredity, how your genes interact with your environment, and how your environment interacts with your genes. What is nature vs nurture? Nature refers to our genes, and nurture refers to our environment. They are the sources that create individual differences in development. We tend to know more about genes than we do about how we are impacted by environment because environment has countless factors that play a part in impacting our development.
Two of the most important terms to understand when looking in to nature vs nurture is genotype and phenotype. Genotype is simply the genetic constitution (or the unchangeable makeup) of an individual organism. Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment. Now that we defined genotype and phenotype, let’s look at the different ways our genetics interacts with our environment.
Passive genotype-environment correlation occurs when children passively inherit the genes and the environments their family provides. Certain behavioral characteristics, such as being athletically inclined, may run in families. The children have inherited both the genes that would enable success at these activities and given the environmental encouragement to engage in these actions.
Evocative genotype-environment correlation refers to how the social environment reacts to individuals based on their inherited characteristics. For example, whether one has a more outgoing or shy temperament will affect how he or she is treated by others.
Active genotype-environment correlation occurs when individuals seek out environments that support their genetic tendencies. This is also referred to as niche picking. For example, children who are musically inclined seek out music instruction and opportunities that facilitate their natural musical ability.
Genetic research has consistently shown heritable influence in many traditional areas of psychological research such as mental illness, personality, cognitive disabilities and abilities, and drug use and abuse. Some areas showing strong genetic influence may be more surprising, such as self-esteem, interests, attitudes, and school achievement (Plomin & Asbury, 2005).
There are many studies done on siblings to show what influence is stronger, genes or environment. Siblings are often similar, but their similarity is rooted in their genes rather than in the environment they share. Environment is hugely important to human development, but genetic research has shown beyond doubt that the most effective environmental influences are those that operate to make children in the same family different, not similar. These environmental influences are called non-shared because they are not shared by children growing up in the same family (Plomin & Asbury, 2005). In non-shared environments, children can experience differences in parents, peers, teachers, health and wellness practices, attitudes, beliefs, and religious practices. These differences in non-shared environmental influences can lead to differences in behaviors.
Throughout the lifespan of a child’s development, children may experience genetic change. Genetic change simply means that genetic effects at one age differ from genetic effects at another age; that is, the same genes could have different effects in the brains of eight-year-olds and eighteen (Plomin & Asbury, 2005). For example, developmental change in genetic effects is likely to be responsible for the fact that it is difficult to find behavioral markers in childhood for individuals who later become schizophrenic. Although it is possible that "schizophrenia genes" are not turned on until after adolescence, it is more likely that these genes operate the same way before and after adolescence but that they only express their hallucinatory and paranoid effects after adolescent brain development (Plomin & Asbury, 2005).
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): The genetics of these twins are identical to one another, just like their appearance. (CC BT-ND 2.0; ethermoon via Flickr)
Temperament
What are the origins of human personality? Are they chiefly the result of the child's reinforcement history? The child's learned attributions about the social world? The child's genes? Or is there more to understand than would result from a simple choice between nature and nurture (Rothbart, 2007)? Through genetics, we develop temperament.
Temperament is made up of the innate characteristics that determine an individual’s sensitivity to various experiences and responsiveness to patterns of social interaction. Are there links between a child’s temperament and personality development? Understanding temperament is central to our understanding of development, and temperament constructs are linked to individual differences in both personality and underlying neural function (Rothbart, 2007). Temperament and experience combine to "grow" a personality, which will include the child's developing cognitions about self, others, and the physical and social world, as well as his or her values, attitudes, and coping strategies (Rothbart, 2007).
From early infancy, children show considerable variability in their reactions to the environment. One child is fearful, has only a brief attention span, and cries even at moderately stimulating play; another child enjoys vigorous play, is not easily distracted, and seeks out exciting events. These reactions, together with the mechanisms that regulate them, constitute the child's temperament (Rothbart, 2007). Early temperament development can lead to behavioral problems in adolescence. Starting at birth, children are developing temperament, and through temperament, children are developing other social behaviors such as conscience and empathy. For an example, in a study, more fearful children developed greater conscience during the preschool years than less fearful children did. Fear provides internal cues of discomfort that can be attributed to conscience rather than to external reward or coercion (Rothbart, 2007). In that same study, it was noted that the relation between temperament and conscience was also affected by parenting. Fearful children who received gentle and non-punitive socialization developed greater conscience than did fearful children whose parents were punitive.
Family
Family is the first and most important agent of socialization. Mothers and fathers, siblings and grandparents, plus members of an extended family, all teach a child what he or she needs to know. For example, they show the child how to use objects (such as clothes, computers, eating utensils, books, bikes); how to relate to others (some as “family,” others as “friends,” still others as “strangers” or “teachers” or “neighbors”); and how the world works (what is “real” and what is “imagined”). As you are aware, either from your own experience as a child or from your role in helping to raise one, socialization includes teaching and learning about an unending array of objects and ideas.
Part of the reason we turn out much like our parents, for better or worse, is that our families are such an important part of our socialization process. When we are born, our primary caregivers are almost always one or both of our parents. For several years, we have more contact with them than with any other adults. Because this contact occurs in our most formative years, our parents’ interaction with us and the messages they teach us can have a profound impact throughout our lives.
Keep in mind, however, that families do not socialize children in a vacuum. Many social factors affect the way a family raises its children. For example, we can use our imagination to recognize that individual behaviors are affected by the historical period in which they take place. Sixty years ago, it would not have been considered especially strict for a father to hit his son with a wooden spoon or a belt if he misbehaved, but today that same action in some places might be considered child abuse.
Sociologists recognize that race, social class, religion, and other societal factors play an important role in family socialization. Families may socialize for obedience and conformity, judgment, creativity, and problem-solving, depending on the values they hold. Children may also be socialized to abide by gender norms, perceptions of race, and class-related behaviors. For example, poor families usually emphasize obedience and conformity when raising their children, while wealthy families emphasize judgment and creativity (National Opinion Research Center, 2008). This may occur because working-class parents have less education and more repetitive-task jobs for which it is helpful to be able to follow rules and conform. Wealthy parents tend to have better educations and often work in managerial positions or careers that require creative problem solving, so they teach their children behaviors that are beneficial in these positions. This means children are effectively socialized and raised to take the types of jobs their parents already have, thus reproducing the class system (Kohn, 1977).Likewise, children are socialized to abide by gender norms, perceptions of race, and class-related behaviors. In Sweden, for instance, stay-at-home fathers are an accepted part of the social landscape. A government policy provides subsidized time off work—480 days for families with newborns—with the option of the paid leave being shared between mothers and fathers. As one stay-at-home dad says, being home to take care of his baby son “is a real fatherly thing to do. I think that’s very masculine” (Associated Press, 2011). Close to 90 percent of Swedish fathers use their paternity leave (about 340,000 dads); on average they take seven weeks per birth (The Economist, 2014). How do U.S. policies—and our society’s expected gender roles—compare? How will Swedish children raised this way be socialized to parental gender norms? How might that be different from parental gender norms in the United States?
What are your thoughts…. Should parents get the credit when their children turn out to be “good” kids and even go on to accomplish great things in life? Should they get the blame if their children turn out to be “bad”?
Understanding Racial Socialization
In a society that is still racially prejudiced, African American parents continue to find it necessary to teach their children about African American culture and to prepare them for the bias and discrimination they can expect to encounter. Scholars in sociology and other disciplines have studied this process of racial socialization. One of their most interesting findings is that African American parents differ in the degree of racial socialization they practice: some parents emphasize African American identity and racial prejudice to a considerable degree, while other parents mention these topics to their children only minimally. The reasons for these differences have remained unclear.
Sociologist Jason E. Shelton (2008) analyzed data from a national random sample of African Americans to determine these reasons, in what he called “one of the most comprehensive analyses to date of racial socialization strategies among African Americans” (p. 237). Among other questions, respondents were asked whether “in raising your children, have you done or told them things to help them know what it means to be Black.” They were also asked whether “there are any other things you’ve done or told your children to help them know how to get along with White people.”
In his major results, Shelton found that respondents were more likely to practice racial socialization if they were older, female, and living outside the South; if they perceived that racial discrimination was a growing problem and were members of civil rights or other organizations aimed at helping African Americans; and if they had higher incomes.
These results led Shelton to conclude that “African Americans are not a culturally monolithic group,” as they differ in “the parental lessons they impart to their children about race relations” (2008, p. 253). Further, the parents who do practice racial socialization “do so in order to demystify and empower their offspring to seize opportunities in the larger society” (p. 253).
Shelton’s study helps us to understand the factors accounting for differences in racial socialization by African American parents, and it also helps us understand that the parents who do attempt to make their children aware of U.S. race relations are merely trying, as most parents do, to help their children get ahead in life. By increasing our understanding of these matters, Shelton’s research has helped make a difference.
The ways in which our parents socialize us depend on many factors, two of the most important of which are our parents’ social class and our own biological sex. Melvin Kohn (1965, 1977) found that working-class and middle-class parents tend to socialize their children very differently. Kohn reasoned that working-class parents tend to hold factory and other jobs in which they have little autonomy and instead are told what to do and how to do it. In such jobs, obedience is an important value, lest the workers be punished for not doing their jobs correctly. Working-class parents, Kohn thought, should thus emphasize obedience and respect for authority as they raise their children, and they should favor spanking as a primary way of disciplining their kids when they disobey. In contrast, middle-class parents tend to hold white-collar jobs where autonomy and independent judgment are valued and workers get ahead by being creative. These parents should emphasize independence as they raise their children and should be less likely than working-class parents to spank their kids when they disobey.
If parents’ social class influences how they raise their children, it is also true that the sex of their children affects how they are socialized by their parents. Many studies find that parents raise their daughters and sons quite differently as they interact with them from birth. Parents help their girls learn how to act and think “like girls,” and they help their boys learn how to act and think “like boys.” That is, they help their daughters and sons learn their gender (Wood, 2009). For example, they are gentler with their daughters and rougher with their sons. They give their girls dolls to play with, and their boys guns. Girls may be made of “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys something quite different, but their parents help them greatly, for better or worse, turn out that way. To the extent this is true, our gender stems much more from socialization than from biological differences between the sexes, or so many sociologists assume. If theorist Carol Gilligan is right that boys and girls reach moral judgments differently, perhaps socialization matters more than biology for how they reach these judgments.
Peers
When you were a 16-year-old, how many times did you complain to your parent(s), “All of my friends are [doing so and so]. Why can’t I? It isn’t fair!” As this all-too-common example indicates, our friends play a very important role in our lives. This is especially true during adolescence, when peers influence our tastes in music, clothes, and so many other aspects of our lives, as the now-common image of the teenager always on a cell phone reminds us. But friends are important during other parts of the life course as well. We rely on them for fun, for emotional comfort and support, and for companionship. That is the upside of friendships.
The downside of friendships is called peer pressure, with which you are undoubtedly familiar. Suppose it is Friday night, and you are studying for a big exam on Monday. Your friends come by and ask you to go with them to get a pizza and a drink. You would probably agree to go with them, partly because you really dislike studying on a Friday night, but also because there is at least some subtle pressure on you to do so. As this example indicates, our friends can influence us in many ways. During adolescence, their interests can affect our own interests in film, music, and other aspects of popular culture. More ominously, adolescent peer influences have been implicated in underage drinking, drug use, delinquency, and hate crimes (Agnew, 2007).
After we reach our 20s and 30s, our peers become less important in our lives, especially if we get married. Yet even then our peers do not lose all their importance, as parents with young children still manage to get out with friends now and then. Scholars have also begun to emphasize the importance of friendships with coworkers for emotional and practical support and for our continuing socialization (Elsesser & Peplau, 2006; Marks, 1994).
How did peers play an important role in your life? How did “peer pressure” impact decisions that you made as a teenager?
School
Most U.S. children spend about seven hours a day, 180 days a year, in school, which makes it hard to deny the importance school has on their socialization (Livingston and Wirt, 2004). Students are not in school only to study math, reading, science, and other subjects—the manifest function of this system. Schools also serve a latent function in society by socializing children into behaviors like practicing teamwork, following a schedule, and using textbooks.
School and classroom rituals, led by teachers serving as role models and leaders, regularly reinforce what society expects from children. Sociologists describe this aspect of schools as the hidden curriculum, the informal teaching done by schools.
For example, in the United States, schools have built a sense of competition into the way grades are awarded and the way teachers evaluate students (Bowles and Gintis 1976). When children participate in a relay race or a math contest, they learn there are winners and losers in society. When children are required to work together on a project, they practice teamwork with other people in cooperative situations. The hidden curriculum prepares children for the adult world. Children learn how to deal with bureaucracy, rules, expectations, waiting their turn, and sitting still for hours during the day. The latent functions of teamwork and dealing with bureaucracy are features of U.S. culture. Schools in different cultures socialize children differently in order to prepare them to function well in those cultures.
Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): What hidden curriculum might be at play in this elementary classroom? (CC BY 2.0; USAG- Humphreys via Flickr)
Schools also socialize children by teaching them about citizenship and national pride. In the United States, children are taught to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Most school districts require classes about U.S. history and geography. As academic understanding of history evolves, textbooks in the United States have been scrutinized and revised to update attitudes toward other cultures as well as perspectives on historical events; thus, children are socialized to a different national or world history than earlier textbooks may have done. For example, information about the mistreatment of African Americans and Native American Indians more accurately reflects those events than in textbooks of the past.
Check-in Time!
What are some examples of “hidden curriculum” that you experienced? How did it impact you then and now? Share any books that you read (either assigned or personal choice) that might have influenced any thoughts or ideas that you had as a child or teenager. How did they impact you now and then?
Controversial Textbooks
On August 13, 2001, twenty South Korean men gathered in Seoul. Each chopped off one of his own fingers because of textbooks. These men took drastic measures to protest eight middle school textbooks approved by Tokyo for use in Japanese middle schools. According to the Korean government (and other East Asian nations), the textbooks glossed over negative events in Japan’s history at the expense of other Asian countries.
In the early 1900s, Japan was one of Asia’s more aggressive nations. For instance, it held Korea as a colony between 1910 and 1945. Today, Koreans argue that the Japanese are whitewashing that colonial history through these textbooks. One major criticism is that they do not mention that, during World War II, the Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery. The textbooks describe the women as having been “drafted” to work, a euphemism that downplays the brutality of what actually occurred. Some Japanese textbooks dismiss an important Korean independence demonstration in 1919 as a “riot.” In reality, Japanese soldiers attacked peaceful demonstrators, leaving roughly 6,000 dead and 15,000 wounded (Crampton 2002).
Although it may seem extreme that people are so enraged about how events are described in a textbook that they would resort to dismemberment, the protest affirms that textbooks are a significant tool of socialization in state-run education systems.
The Community
The community a child resides in can provide the child with real experiences that will impact their views and perspective on the world. Aspects of the community such as whether it’s a diverse community, access to resources, exposure to violence, extracurricular activities and programs, and the day to day behaviors of community members can impact the child. Other components of the community to take in to consideration is whether it’s an individualistic (those that stress the needs of the individual over the needs of the group as a whole) or collectivistic community (emphasize the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of each individual), and if the community is child centered.
While some religions are informal institutions, here we focus on practices followed by formal institutions. Religion is an important avenue of socialization for many people. The United States is full of synagogues, temples, churches, mosques, and similar religious communities where people gather to worship and learn. Like other institutions, these places teach participants how to interact with the religion’s material culture (like a mezuzah, a prayer rug, or a communion wafer). For some people, important ceremonies related to family structure—like marriage and birth—are connected to religious celebrations. Many religious institutions also uphold gender norms and contribute to their enforcement through socialization. From ceremonial rites of passage that reinforce the family unit to power dynamics that reinforce gender roles, organized religion fosters a shared set of socialized values that are passed on through society.
Just as children spend much of their day at school, many U.S. adults at some point invest a significant amount of time at a place of employment. Although socialized into their culture since birth, workers require new socialization into a workplace, in terms of both material culture (such as how to operate the copy machine) and nonmaterial culture (such as whether it’s okay to speak directly to the boss or how to share the refrigerator).
Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): A woman speaks on discrimination in the workplace. (CC BY-ND 2.0; DG EMPL via Flickr)
Different jobs require different types of socialization. In the past, many people worked a single job until retirement. Today, the trend is to switch jobs at least once a decade. This means that people must become socialized to, and socialized by, a variety of work environments.
Government
Although we do not think about it, many of the rites of passage people go through today are based on age norms established by the government. In mainstream America, to be defined as an “adult” usually means being eighteen years old, the age at which a person becomes legally responsible for him- or herself. And sixty-five years old is the start of “old age” since most people become eligible for senior benefits at that point.
Each time we embark on one of these new categories—senior, adult, taxpayer—we must be socialized into our new role. Seniors must learn the ropes of Medicare, Social Security benefits, and senior shopping discounts. When U.S. males turn eighteen, they must register with the Selective Service System within thirty days to be entered into a database for possible military service. These government dictates mark the points at which we require socialization into a new category.
Mass Media
Mass media distribute impersonal information to a wide audience, via television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. With the average person spending over four hours a day in front of the television (and children averaging even more screen time), media greatly influences social norms (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). People learn about objects of material culture (like new technology and transportation options), as well as nonmaterial culture—what is true (beliefs), what is important (values), and what is expected (norms).[5]
The Effect of "Princess Culture"
Pixar is one of the largest producers of children’s movies in the world and has released large box office draws, such as Toy Story, Cars, The Incredibles, and Up. What Pixar has never before produced is a movie with a female lead role. This changed with Pixar’s movie Brave, which was released in 2012. Before Brave, women in Pixar served as supporting characters and love interests. In Up, for example, the only human female character dies within the first ten minutes of the film. For the millions of girls watching Pixar films, there are few strong characters or roles for them to relate to. If they do not see possible versions of themselves, they may come to view women as secondary to the lives of men.
The animated films of Pixar’s parent company, Disney, have many female lead roles. Disney is well known for films with female leads, such as Snow White, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, and Mulan. Many of Disney’s movies star a female, and she is nearly always a princess figure. If she is not a princess to begin with, she typically ends the movie by marrying a prince or, in the case of Mulan, a military general. Although not all “princesses” in Disney movies play a passive role in their lives, they typically find themselves needing to be rescued by a man, and the happy ending they all search for includes marriage.
Alongside this prevalence of princesses, many parents are expressing concern about the culture of princesses that Disney has created. Peggy Orenstein addresses this problem in her popular book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter. Orenstein wonders why every little girl is expected to be a “princess” and why pink has become an all-consuming obsession for many young girls. Another mother wondered what she did wrong when her three-year-old daughter refused to do “non-princessy” things, including running and jumping. The effects of this princess culture can have negative consequences for girls throughout life. An early emphasis on beauty and sexiness can lead to eating disorders, low self-esteem, and risky sexual behavior among older girls.
Check-in Time!
What movies or tv shows impacted you as a child? How did they influence your social norms and values?
References
Agnew, R. (2007). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Shelton, J. E. (2008). The investment in blackness hypothesis: Toward greater understanding of who teaches what during racial socialization. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 5(2), 235–257.
Wood, J. T. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
